Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone

from the and-shows-no-signs-of-slowing-down dept

For all the attention that Prenda has received this past year or so as being at the extreme crazy end of copyright trolling, many have argued that Malibu Media is just as bad, if not worse. While the porn company has hit some snags with its lawsuits, such as getting sanctioned for the infamous Exhibit C, which was an incredibly sleazy attempt to intimidate people into paying up, the company appears to have shook off that loss and just continued suing as many people as possible. Dave Maass is pointing out that in just 2013, the company has filed more than 1,100 lawsuits. Think about that. We're talking about around 3 lawsuits per day by this one company. If you ever needed proof that the company is focused on using abuse of our judicial system as a key piece of its business model, that seems like fairly compelling evidence.

If you ever needed proof that the company is focused on using abuse of our judicial system as a key piece of its business model, that seems like fairly compelling evidence.

The sheer number, without more, strikes me only as compelling evidence that there are A LOT of copyright infringers out there. How many millions and millions of your pirate buddies DON'T get sued each year, Mike? Given how incredibly widespread piracy is, how does 1,100 lawsuits--a mere tiny fraction of the pirates out there--show that it's abuse? It only shows that if you're predisposed to pirate apologism, as you clearly are.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

See, here's the thing, unless you have proof that everyone here not only supports piracy, but practices it, claiming that people are pirates(as you both are doing now), would seem to be projection on your parts, claiming others are doing what you yourself are to deflect guilt from your actions, as again, you do not have, or have refused to present, proof that the people here are pirates and support piracy.

Re: Re: Re:

No, it shows that the public are tired of the corruption that has created an unjust system, paid for by people like you who do not believe that they need to adhere to the bargain that was struck, but can bribe politicians to change the laws in your favour.

That you can do end runs around existing laws with things like the TPP, SOPA etc...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I made a movie 4 years ago. I want to enforce my copyright and have people buy it. This is the law. The bargain that was struck. I have bribed no politicians. I don't and am not trying to do an end around anyone. I want to make the money off of the thing I MADE. You tell me I am part of some cartel and that because what I made is on pirate bay it's OK to TAKE IT? Somehow I have failed the consumer? It cost ME money to MAKE. Why do you get it for FREE?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I agree with you. Except that you put it on VHS and only VHS and decided against making available any other way. This caused someone else to rip it and make it available digitally. Then since you didn't make it digitally and no one wants to use your VHS version this causes piracy. Since your movie was great and everyone wants to watch it, and Amazon only carries the VHS version, people go online and pirate it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I made it available on DVD. I made a website to order it from. I am not sure why this shouldn't be enough, But after I felt people wanted a digital copy I made one available. I did all you asked of me yet I am wrong for wanting to make money from my investment. I am told repeatedly I am aligned with Disney, I don't know anyone at Disney.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If it helps, I do not pirate, buy or rent any movies anymore. I do sometimes see them in the $3 theater.

Not only am I not an infringer, I'm not even a customer! If it's not available for me to easily grab at a decent price, I don't touch it. If it's not available to me at all, I may grab it if I feel like going through the effort (hi no export for you games).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

LAB - don't bother to address the post to which you respond, simply ramble on about an unrelated hypothetical story you just now pulled out of your ass. The dissed bags 'o douche' in this zoological expanse want more than simple logic and made up facts, they will eventually ignore your rants.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

@LAB thank you for explaining your position. It makes it easier to sympathize with you. What you need to do is find a way to make money from your movie by engaging with your audience. This link might help: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=business+models

Basically, it's not just about selling copies. You need to engage with your audience and add value to your product.

If you contact some of the people who bought or watched your film, ask them if they watched the whole thing, if they liked it, and if they recommended it to friends.

At this point you may find out what the problem is... the same one I have with pushing my book... it's not terribly popular. Why? Dare I suggest that it's not a brilliant piece of literature? Okay, I dared. So saying that I rely on the funds from every sale because there are few of them is an option, but not one I'd recommend. I gave away free copies and there's a good chance that some unauthorized sharing went on, but if it did, so what? I wouldn't have made much out of them anyway unless the sharing was widespread.

Which brings me to my point: in the Digital Age, trying to make money from selling copies when it's never been easier to copy is a bad idea. Better to get the public to sponsor you to make movies, set up an Indiegogo or Kickstarter to fund them, then go and make them, is the better way to go. By selling subscriptions to people to watch them ad-free streaming online or membership of a club that provides its members with special privileges, you can make even more money. Don't be annoyed at progress, leverage it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

" I want to enforce my copyright and have people buy it."

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that people buy content only if copyright is enforced. Couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a hardcore copyright infringer but I still pay for plenty. Here's my Steam profilehttp://steamcommunity.com/id/RikuoAmero/

If you give us a link to your movie, I certainly won't pay for it outright without seeing it. What if it's a crap movie? Then I'd be out X amount of money. If you insist on me paying blindly, give me a reason to. Say a percentage of the cost goes to charity or something (like what Humble Bundle does). If I were to get it off of TPB, and I liked it, I more than likely will throw some money your way, but only if you offer the movie in a way I like (like with Steam. Quite a few games I've torrented games, then later bought them on Steam because of all the conveniences they offer, even though I already have the titles).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps you're missing the point of the criticisms. Nobody's saying that copyright holders don't have a right to enforce copyright. What people are saying is that enforcing copyright is not solving the problem.

Instead of finding a different way to address it, the major corporations are expanding their power and control so far that they are harming innocent bystanders, including people who have no interest in their work whatsoever.

Just because they are getting their stuff pirated does not make it OK for them to do things that harm innocent people or society in general. Further, that there are ways to address the problem without hurting innocent others makes them idiots who are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

For the record, I don't think they're idiots. I think that the problem they're trying to solve isn't piracy at all -- it's the fact that they are losing their oligarchical control over the means of distribution. "Piracy" is just their version of "terrorist": the public excuse they sue to provide PR cover for their despicable actions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

first, just because you made something does not make you entitled to any return. If you didn't manage to convince people that they WANT to pay you for it, tough luck. you made a bet on potential investment return and you lost.

second, you can scream blue murder as much as you like, but that won't make the illegitimate sources go away. you can only learn to live with it and offer a superior service. you know, the bane of the legitimate sources is that there are so many strings attached, that people don't bother. A few articles down you have an excellent illustration of some of the issues, provided by disney and amazon.

third, in a world where a number of copyright holders are shamelessly abusing the laws as is, any screams of unfair treatment of rightsholders will be regarded as worthless hyperbole. People can't and won't care anymore about any of your complaints. And the more people get hit with in their view ridiculous and unfair lawsuits, the less these laws will be respected.

personally I have been hit with copyright bullshit letters for stuff I never even heard of before and subsequently haven't downloaded. and I don't fucking care anymore about ANY rightsholders and their imaginary property.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"first, just because you made something does not make you entitled to any return."

No, but you are not entitled to have it without paying for it. It is a product that has value and as such, and as any other product, you should pay for it.

"If you didn't manage to convince people that they WANT to pay you for it, tough luck.

Is this the same logic the shoplifter uses? You have to convince me to spend my money. Odd your local department store doesn't hold this same opinion.

"second, you can scream blue murder as much as you like, but that won't make the illegitimate sources go away. you can only learn to live with it and offer a superior service."

I'm not screaming blue murder I'm calling out the ridiculous outrage at getting popped for taking something without paying for it. Webster has a definition for it.

steal: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal.

I'm not really here to debate the morals of copyright. Here's the thing, copyright is law and grants numerous rights. So when you break the law there are consequences. I live with piracy everyday. It's the new reality and has forever changed the genres I work in. I accept it. Just call it what it is and be honest with yourself. Taking something without paying for it has a definition.

"third, in a world where a number of copyright holders are shamelessly abusing the laws as is, any screams of unfair treatment of rightsholders will be regarded as worthless hyperbole."

I am not them and we are not one in the same. It may be easier for you to pretend we are to justify taking something without paying for it but it simply isn't true. The pirate is not a mass murderer and I am not Disney.

"People can't and won't care anymore about any of your complaints. And the more people get hit with in their view ridiculous and unfair lawsuits, the less these laws will be respected."

You don't have to respect the law just as the speeder doesn't have to respect the speed limit sign. It is just expensive when they get caught.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm not screaming blue murder I'm calling out the ridiculous outrage at getting popped for taking something without paying for it.

You can pop someone for copyright infringement, sure, but to do it at a shamelessly poor accuracy where you can't even ding the guilty party, then turn around and scream that you're being devastated (despite the MPAA pulling in another year of record-breaking revenue) is not going to pull much sympathy from anyone, never mind pirates.

I'm not really here to debate the morals of copyright

The law is the law is the law, so you're entitled to be a douchebag about it? That's your argument?

I am not them and we are not one in the same. It may be easier for you to pretend we are to justify taking something without paying for it but it simply isn't true.

Your immediate expression of concern that people downloading things is the issue - and not the porn company trying to shake down individuals through threatening financial ruin and defamation - is a pretty clear indication of whether or not you're "the same".

These guys bought a mansion several months ago costing $16 million. And yet, they claim they're being devastated by pirates, which necessitates them to submit a list of hardcore pornographic titles (which they claim they don't produce) to convince the judge that everyone they're suing are twisted porn addicts. "This is a list of shit they probably didn't download, and we don't produce garbage like this. Please throw the book at them."

I don't know what movie you produced, but suffice to say, if you did post it here, I'm not convinced I want to give it my attention, never mind download it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You have very valid arguments

"This is a list of shit they probably didn't download, and we don't produce garbage like this. Please throw the book at them."

I really had a big problem with this. I was discussing this exhibit C business with a colleague and I find it despicable. By placing items they knowingly do not own into the complaint is just a tactic to get them to settle. It would seem criminal and I do not have an answer for you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yet your arguments above point out that it's the law, and you're not here to discuss ethics. This enabling attitude and the subsequent shenanigans pulled off by copyright holders is par for the course in copyright enforcement cases.

So, exactly why would the man on the street feel sympathetic for rightsholders when he could easily be dinged for something he didn't download? And your response is "oh, maybe it's wrong, I dunno, but it's the law"?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So if I pay to see your movie, and think that it is crap, are you going to refund the purchase price and re-imburse me for my lost time.

No

to take away my rights with back door bargains with corrupt politicians.

I haven't done this.

to charge me twice as much for a digital product because I do not live in the USA.

I haven't done this either.

Remove a movie from an online repository after a person has paid for it.

Definitely don't agree with this. I believe often what is purchased is a license and licenses are revocable. Whenever I buy a digital download, I download it because that is what I purchased. I buy it so I want to have it.

Writing songs about our culture without paying us.

Um...I am kinda at a loss on this one. Any artist I have ever worked with, myself included, just right about our personal experiences.

Re: Re: Re:

Actually yours is the bad logic, as someone when to the bother to spend money to create something and then failed to use technology to make it easier for potential buyers to access it in a legal manner; which in turn caused piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The nebulous everyone infringes on copyright once a day argument.

I'm afraid this is very specific and actionable by law

Regardless of how I feel about the litigation, If you don't pay for your copy of Giant Butt Destruction 7, and take it for free, you have been put on notice you might get sued. If you want to avoid the embarrassment just buy a copy and you will have nothing to worry about.

I am sure your parents did not approve of you shoplifting, why do you feel it is ok now?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ LAB: WASTING YOUR TIME.

Me and the AC at #2 are about the only ones here who stick up for copyright as it being YOUR work product and no one else has a right to take it.

I advise you to give up: I've been here three years supporting creators -- after I worked through the undeniable fact that the pirates have NO right to take other's work-product -- and the pirates still brazenly insist they're entitled to steal -- and I only do it for fun.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thanks for the apology. I will say this about you. You're the only person (and I do mean ONLY) who's shown up on Techdirt since I've started coming here who is on the side of copyright but is able to debate it in a calm and polite fashion. I look forward to doing this with you in the future.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This illustrates a big part of the problem, that being one is assumed to be guilty.

They either pay the ransom or waste lots of money defending themselves only to have the extortionist drop the case because they will certainly lose and possibly face paying their victims lawyer fees.

I find the extortionist cheerleaders to be fascinating from a medical perspective. These people are, potentially, future victims but convince themselves it will never happen. Cognitive dissonance in action, sort of like a smoker who just can not quit.

we are not the ones that 'needed proof that the company is focused on using abuse of our judicial system as a key piece of its business model', it's the politicians and law enforcement officials that help them to carry on this scam. not that it will make any difference. they think more of how much bigger their bank account is growing than whether what they are doing is right or helpful or not!

Malibu Media Claims Death Threats

While spending all this time and effort to file these cases, they are taking short-cuts with their filing. We recently found an obvious cut & paste in a motion for a protective order. The section in the new motion was taken word for word from an August 2012 motion in CO. I guess the death threats and harassment was soooooo bad that they couldn't think of anything new to say. Don't believe the claim that they are not a Copyright Troll. Here is the post.

Gee, Mike, this proves that your copyright abuse pieces are taken as justifying piracy.

Okay, so here Rikuo flatly states: "I'm a hardcore copyright infringer", and we're supposed to believe this isn't a pirate site. -- Rikuo is getting close to actionable: all that's needed is a little bit of identifying and just one of his many crimes. I'm ALL for that now after he taunts someone who only wants to get paid for work when someone enjoys the product. Mike frequently runs items on "copyright abuse" intended to STIFLE expression knowing full well that his fanboys then consider all copyright bad and use those bad acts to justify their own STEALING of content. As Mike never runs items condemning STEALING, it's difficult to see how he "supports copyright". -- Mike sets up a false alternative: in fact, BOTH STIFLING AND STEALING ARE BAD.

Re: Gee, Mike, this proves that your copyright abuse pieces are taken as justifying piracy.

Great use of logic. So...if a Neo-Nazi purchases an Insider package and comments regularly on this site, does that make this site a haven for Neo-Nazism?Here's something you have got to understand. I AM NOT TECHDIRT STAFF OR MANAGEMENT. I do not edit articles, and have to date only written two. I am a frequent commenter yes, but that does not mean that my views equal the views of Techdirt.As for identifying me...good fucking luck with that, mate. You'd first have to somehow find out which works I've infringed upon, then convince the relevant copyright holders to subpoena Mike for my details, which he would fight. If he were somehow compelled to, then you'd have the tiny little problem of me NOT BEING IN THE USA. As in, I can't be extradited. Sure, you could go ahead and punish me, the heinous law-breaker that I am, but only if you and your ilk are willing to break dozens of other laws to do it.

Yeah I know. In the past, one would have thought that the knowledge that the guys bringing charges against you have violated just about every law and rule in the book would result in a quick and easy victory for you but with the Meguapload fiasco...

Re: Gee, Mike, this proves that your copyright abuse pieces are taken as justifying piracy.

"Gee, Mike, this proves that your copyright abuse pieces are taken as justifying piracy."

So does your support of these undisputably immoral acts mean that you justify terrorism?

"As Mike never runs items condemning STEALING, it's difficult to see how he "supports copyright"."

Copyright infringement is wrong, but not as wrong as extortion and corrupt practices to make people into criminals, such as *all* of the copyright abusers are guilty of.

Here's the facts for you:Copyright infringement is not stealing.Copyright infringement is wrong.The lies and bribery used to pass laws allowing this extortion are a greater wrong.The acts of intimidation against site owners and alleged infringers (Terrorism by any other name) are the most wrong.

Get the last two of those fixed, as they are the issues that *need* punishment, and then we can talk about the other issue. Won't be much of a conversation if the maximalists are in jail where they belong, but oh well...

I'm not sure some of the other commenters realise that we're talking about porn here. Because I'm all for reasonable copyright, but when I think about "the progress of science and the useful arts" (I'm not American, but this case is, and besides it's a good benchmark anyway) then Slags Take It Up The Arse #37 isn't what most readily comes to mind.

Re:

There are actually some pornographic titles that have great elements of creativity put in them...and what do you mean they're not useful? Every single person who's watched one and masturbated would beg to differ with you.

Two years later... the Malibu-Lipscomb partnership is in tatters, judges are realizing that Malibu is trying to jump ship from cases they don't expect to win and are putting the kibosh on those operations, and Colette had to sell off her $16 million mansion that she illegally filmed porn in.

Where are you, LAB? Where are you, Anonymous64? Where are you, antidirt? You can pull out_of_the_blue from underneath the bus you threw him under...